15.07.2014 Views

PNLC Meeting Minutes - Port Nelson

PNLC Meeting Minutes - Port Nelson

PNLC Meeting Minutes - Port Nelson

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>Minutes</strong> <strong>Port</strong> Noise Liaison Committee #11<br />

Date: 3 Feb 2010<br />

Venue: <strong>Port</strong> <strong>Nelson</strong> Board Room<br />

Time:<br />

6pm<br />

Present: Bob Dickinson (Chair), Matt McDonald (PNL), Thomas Marchant (PNL), Digby Kynaston (PNL), Jacquetta Bell (PNL minutes);<br />

Bruce Robertson, Sue Thomas, Albert Hutterd (residents’ reps).<br />

Agenda Discussion Action Points Arising<br />

1. Previous<br />

minutes<br />

Sue reiterated her request for hard copy minutes. Clarification of who made the complaint re<br />

containers falling.<br />

Passed, Albert/Digby<br />

2. Matters arising Wind & containers: Sue said Enza crates are stacked in a zigzag formation, to resist wind?<br />

Albert thought this was to follow the contour of the road. Digby said this method would take up<br />

too much space with containers, would make movements more difficult and any change would<br />

affect existing infrastructure. Matt said containers were already stacked to maximise wind<br />

resistance; also port is subject to winds from a range of directions.<br />

Noise monitor is now mounted on cement silo, but there are some IT issues to sort out,<br />

reporting methods be sorted, calibrations to be done. Then NCC will need to sign off on<br />

position of monitor.<br />

Weather station also to be placed on silo, and will give data on wind speed etc.<br />

Question as to whether PNL offers weather information from Fairway Beacon to the public.<br />

3. Noise complaints Three calls since last meeting, all regarding night of 8 Dec, while JPO LEO and Spirit of<br />

Resolution were at MWS. Ian Northrop lodged two separate complaints. Lashing bars dropped<br />

onto deck whilst unloading Spirit of Resolution – discussion around dropping bars and need for<br />

person at the bottom to control landing. JPO LEO - extremely noisy overnight, short impact<br />

noise from container discharging.<br />

Mike Young rang the next day and said this was one of the noisiest nights he has ever had.<br />

Questioned whether new crane drivers were on for the night. Hatch lids being placed on top of<br />

each other on the vessel was the main source of noise.<br />

Digby showed supervisor’s noise log – benefit is in operators being aware of this random<br />

check. Thomas said continuous monitoring will remove ‘ifs and buts’. Sue asked what action is<br />

taken to encourage compliance. Digby explained the progressive warning/performance<br />

management system.<br />

Bob asked about failure to follow procedure on night of Dec 8. Digby said complaints don’t<br />

always go straight to supervisors. Reinforces need for calls to be made at the time.<br />

Noted that if calls go to NCC, they alert PNL.<br />

Question about why JPO LEO is noisy. It is big, but similar to Cap Capricorn. Has to be<br />

berthed at MWS, always comes on Sunday night - may add to the irritation factor.<br />

4. Annual Report Noise Variation states: “An annual summary of the activities of the <strong>Port</strong> Noise Liaison<br />

Committee taken from the minutes of the committee meetings is to be provided to owners of<br />

noise-affected properties. The summary to be provided to any member of public on request.”<br />

Thomas to action.<br />

Noise monitor show & tell<br />

at next meeting.<br />

Digby to look into<br />

providing weather<br />

information on PNL<br />

website.<br />

Sue to contact Mike and<br />

Ian suggest they put<br />

gatehouse number on<br />

speed dial so they can<br />

ring at the time noise<br />

occurs.<br />

Page 1 of 2


5 Stage 3<br />

contributions<br />

criteria.<br />

6 Update on<br />

mitigation work<br />

Sue believed this requirement was being met through the residents’ newsletter. Discussion<br />

over whether the reporting should be done by the residents’ reps or from the committee.<br />

Concluded that residents’ reporting had been done under interim provisions.<br />

Thomas had put some highlights together from the minutes. Question about whether minutes<br />

are available online – no, but they could be.<br />

Sue suggested a newsy letter would be read more. Jacq suggested a newsy letter, with the<br />

summary of the minutes as an attachment – general agreement that this would provide<br />

readability and meet the requirements of the Variation.<br />

Thomas tabled the factors that must be considered when assessing applications for assistance<br />

with acoustic treatment: These include internal noise levels and effect of <strong>Port</strong> Noise on the<br />

occupiers’ internal enjoyment of the property – Matt concerned about vagueness of this.<br />

PNL is currently providing an acoustic report on request, with the committee making a<br />

recommendation on work to be done and payment.<br />

With Stage 3 properties the port noise liaison committee has to provide technical advice and<br />

the port operator up to 50% of acoustic treatment costs. Bob said in effect Stage 3 properties<br />

would have to be treated in much the same way as Stage 2: i.e. request from owner, report<br />

from expert, then it comes to the committee, they decide if PNL should pay 50% - seen as<br />

norm rather than maximum. Sue said there wouldn’t be a deluge, Bob said the 50% hurdle<br />

would put a lot of people off. Sue said people would be amenable to negotiation over priority<br />

of work and cost.<br />

Decided the criteria would remain in place, and Stage 3 would be treated the same as Stage 2,<br />

the difference being that residents initiate request for assistance. Sue said new residents are<br />

likely to be the ones seeking help. Noted that the committee will need to record all requests<br />

from Stage 3 properties.<br />

Question from Bruce re a residents house. The report says the windows need to be made to fit<br />

better, but if she wants double glazing it will be at her cost over and above the cost of single<br />

glazing to meet noise requirements.<br />

Thomas tabled update.<br />

Stage 1: Work done on a Queens Rd property, at less cost than original plans indicated, may<br />

need more tweaks to ventilation and ceiling insulation. Further readings to be taken.<br />

Stage 2: Nevil has been down and 5 acoustic reports are due in (bringing total to 21 out of 41).<br />

Work is proceeding as agreed on three properties and residents are happy.<br />

Stage 3: seven reports have been done. One resident wants to go ahead with work on their<br />

porch. Sue’s house available as demonstration of noise mitigation treatment.<br />

7 AOB Residents’ reps noted they indicated the shift in attitude from <strong>Port</strong> <strong>Nelson</strong>.<br />

<strong>Meeting</strong> closed at 7.40. Next meeting, TBC, PNL boardroom, 1800hrs.<br />

Thomas to look into<br />

putting the minutes of the<br />

committee meetings on<br />

PNL website.<br />

Sue to assist Thomas with<br />

writing the newsy covering<br />

letter.<br />

Page 2 of 2

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!